IP: Re: grad school....

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>To: jcp@jcphome.com
>cc: farber@cis.upenn.edu, mo@ccr.org
>Subject: Re: IP: grad school....
>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:28:55 -0400
>From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo@ccr.org>
>
>
>having been both inside and outside that world,
>it's a very interesting problem
>
>on the one hand, really revolutionary things often come
>from people who doggedly sit in the corner and ignore all
>the career advice they are given until they deliver a jackpot,
>and which point their vision and genius are celebrated
>and all the histories appropriately revised.
>
>on the other hand, when people in those environments *want*
>to do someting relevant to "the market", they are often
>confounded by both the usual "it's not pure research" sneers,
>but also the parent company's manifest inability to give
>away gold bricks on a streetcorner, much less launch a product
>in a  competitive market.  that's been an endemic problem
>at Murray Hill, and even worse at Bellcore where they were
>essentially prohibited from doing anything anyone wanted.
>
>IBM, though, manages to support both kinds of work, as do
>other organizations.
>
>part of it goes to a deep-seated misunderstanding of the
>nature of the R&D intellectual enterprise pioneered here in the US.
>my second area of study in grad school was history of science,
>and Tom Smith, my professor in that area, is the father of
>the history of "R&D", which is now recognized as an intellectual
>interprise quite distinct from "Basic Research" and "Technology".
>historically, Basic Research and Technology were at opposite ends
>of the spectrum - not actually enemies, but percieved as such by many.
>the former interested in "knowledge for its own sake" and the latter
>embracing "whatever works without regard for why".  Physics is usually
>cited as an example of the former, agriculture an example of the
>latter.
>
>anyway, R&D is a curious amalgam, pioneered in industry, which blends
>the two together, along with applied engineering and even market research,
>whose goal is "Innovation" - doing something brand new, but also equally
>valid, doing something we already know how to do better-faster-cheaper.
>most of computing falls under this latter rubric - there are very few
>things in computing we didn't know how to do before computers,
>but the computer changed the scale at which the activity could be attempted
>by many, many zeros.
>
>the organizations who "get it" understand the power of this
>blending - basic research, applied engineering, talking to
>the people from whom you wish to take money (ie, customers).
>a great example of that outside the computer/communications
>biz is 3M.
>
>there's a book, "Built to Last", which i'm told looks at some companies
>and finds several very counter-intuitive results.   i won't suggest
>it's right or wrong, but it seems thought-provoking.
>
>         -mo



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/